Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for)

Wait, you're Robert Byers?That explains the illiteracy and mental confusion. I have done so. You guess that I am "to afraid" to do what I have in fact been doing?Well, I guess that that's consistent with what we know of your powers of reasoning.

It has already been explained to you --- several times, and by myself amongst others --- why your particular brand of illiterate gibberish is worthless.I dare say you didn't understand it, but then I'm not a miracle worker: I cannot make the lame walk, the blind see, or the stupid think.If you still wish to understand this explanation (and I see no evidence that you have ever wished to understand anything) then I suggest that you re-read the threads in which your stupid blunders were pointed out to you, rather than spamming this thread with the same old crap.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

The topic is actually "Creationism is science classrooms" not "The same old dreary nonsense Dawn's spewed out to no purpose on innumerable threads already". No you won't.You won't understand it. Thinking that I know better than you is not arrogance, it's basic self-respect, on a par with thinking that I'm more moral than Hitler and better looking than the Elephant Man.

Your drivel is still not on topic. This is not to say that it's not amusing, but if you want me to mock you at any length you should probably take it to another thread.

You are, of course, wrong. To the extent that there is an argument buried in your sordid mess of whining, hysteria, and gibberish, I have already pointed out its gross defects on another thread.On this thread I shall therefore content myself with pointing out that although it would be stupid to introduce creationism into science classrooms, it does not follow that every stupid thing you post is on topic merely by consequence of being stupid. It would have to be stupid and about creationism in science classrooms.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I've seen creationism and ID. What they actually involve is bullshitting. No ... the scientific approach involves less bullshitting. And more, what's the word? ... science.If they actually used the same approach to the same facts, they'd come to the same conclusion. The fact that they don't shows that they don't.

Why yes. Just as by use of maps based on a spherical earth rather than a flat one the state (at least tacitly) expresses an official opinion on the religious doctrines of flat-Earth sects.And the state has every right to do this, as the law affirms. Because there is a secular purpose in the state so doing.How many times do you need this explaining to you?

No. For reasons which have been explained to you a jillion times.It may break the stupid law that you've made up in your head, but it does not break the real law which actually exists.How many fucking times do you need this explaining to you? Because this is not in fact illegal if you invoke a law saying there is a separation, repeat separation, of church and state.Because separation, repeat separation, of church and state does not mean that the state should grovel before the doctrines of every and any church.Separation, repeat separation, of church and state means that the state should carry on unaffected by such doctrines. If there were no churches, the state would still teach that the Earth was round. If every church said that the Earth was flat, the state would still teach that the Earth was round. If every church said the Earth was tetrahedral, the state would still teach that the Earth was round. If every church said the Earth was round, the state would still teach that the Earth was round. If every mosque said that the Earth was round, and every church said that it was flat, the state would still teach that the Earth was round, and this would not constitute undue partiality towards Islam, because the state would teach that the Earth was round anyway, no matter whatever various religious groups choose to say. That is separation, repeat separation, of church and state. If, on the other hand, one church or all churches by teaching that the world was flat could thereby compel the Navy to throw away their charts and the schools to throw away their globes, that would be entanglement of church and state.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Which is why creationism has failed.Thanks for playing.

Here's a thought. Maybe it isn't scientists who are confused about what science is. Maybe it's you, the non-scientist who has never done any science.

And this lie does not become truer the oftener you tell it.You have had the law explained to you. You know what the law actually is. Your lies on this subject cannot even be fooling you yourself any more.